The Supreme Court of NSW recently handed down its decision in Bushell v George [2025] NSWSC 1347, a long-running and highly complex dispute involving a 3,000-hectare family farm near Barmedman in regional NSW.
The case involved two of the deceased farmer’s adult children, James and Hannah, who claimed that their father, Wayne, had promised them each a one-third share of the farming land. They said they had shaped their studies and careers around this promise and relied on it to their detriment. Their brother, Abe, however, had worked on the farm his whole life and ultimately became the registered owner shortly before Wayne died.
James and Hannah made two types of claims:
- Proprietary estoppel – arguing that their father encouraged them to believe they would inherit a third of the farm and the Court should enforce the promises..
- Family provision – seeking further provision from the estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
The Court dismissed the proprietary estoppel cases, as well as James’s claim for family provision but found that Hannah should receive additional provision of $300,000 from notional estate.
Key Issues Before the Court
1. Alleged promises about an equal share of the farm
Both James and Hannah said Wayne had repeatedly told them, from childhood onwards, that the farm would eventually be split evenly between the three siblings.
While the Court accepted that these remarks were likely made, it found they were not clear or binding promises—and, importantly, it was not reasonable for James or Hannah to rely on them as assurances of future ownership.
In contrast, Abe’s lifelong work on the farm and Wayne’s repeated statements to him about inheriting the property were far more consistent and supported by the evidence.
2. Detrimental reliance
To succeed in a proprietary estoppel claim, a plaintiff must show they acted to their detriment based on the promise.
- James argued that he shaped his education and career around returning to the farm.
- Hannah said she chose particular subjects, studied law, returned home briefly in 2009, and later moved back to regional NSW partly because she believed she would inherit land.
The Court found that while these decisions were sincere, they were not sufficiently connected to the alleged promises and did not amount to detriment of the type required for proprietary estoppel.
As a result, both proprietary estoppel claims were dismissed.
3. Family Provision Claim
A separate question was whether Wayne had made adequate and proper provision for his children.
James
James received a $600,000 legacy under the 2021 will.
The Court found this was adequate, given:
- his strong career and stable financial position
- his long estrangement from Wayne
- his ability to support himself
- the importance of preserving the farm in one parcel, in line with Wayne’s clear wishes.
Hannah
Hannah also received $600,000, but the Court found this was not adequate, mainly because:
- she is the primary earner in a family with young children
- she has less superannuation and more household debt
- her relationship with Wayne had recovered to some extent before his death
- she had fewer financial resources than James
However, the Court stressed that proper provision did not extend to giving her enough to buy farmland or recreate the family enterprise.
The Court determined that Hannah should receive a total of $900,000, meaning an additional $300,000 from notional estate (property treated as part of the estate for family provision purposes).
What This Case Shows
This decision is a clear reminder of several important principles:
- Casual or informal statements about inheritance rarely create binding rights.
- Adult children are not automatically entitled to equal shares. The Court considers financial need, contributions, the relationship with the deceased, and competing moral claims.
- Promises about farmland must be proven with clear, reliable evidence, particularly when one child has devoted their life to the property.
- Family provision law does not guarantee that children can continue a farming lifestyle, especially where the deceased made deliberate decisions to preserve the farm intact.
- Estrangement and litigation against a parent can influence the Court’s view of moral duty.
How We Can Help
Disputes about wills, farms and family expectations are some of the most emotional and legally complex matters we see. Our Estates & Family Provision team can help you understand your rights, assess the strength of your claim, and guide you through the process with clarity and compassion.
If you’re concerned about a will, a farm succession plan, or your entitlements, contact our team for tailored advice.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.